The SBF Scandal: The Players and the Money

The complexities of the FTX scandal with Sam Bankman-Fried at the helm boggles the mind. Unlike the Madoff scandal, which was incredibly simple, the funding, influence, and political networks sounding the $32 billion collapse of FTX is byzantine by design.

Just have a look at the org chart of the company to get a sense. It’s all the better for avoiding oversight.

What we really need in the months or even years in which it will take to sort all of this out is some kind of key to the major players. What follows is a list which we’ve put together in order of network importance for easy reference. This small effort is made necessary because there seems to be very little attention being given to the entire SBF empire, both in terms of the players with whom he worked and where the money ended up.

It’s nowhere near being a guide to the fullness of the networks of funding and influence, and can only begin to hint at the real story of what was really behind this magic bean factory in the Bahamas. Their operations and networks are deliberately obscure and fan out over many countries, institutions, and individuals. There is a strange silence in the air about the details other than the general observation that Sam Bankman-Fried was up to no good.

And yet there were obviously many people involved. It’s probable that the main point was to fund political causes in a way that gets around federal election law, as the indictment suggests in count eight. However, a close examination of the networks keeps coming back to the strange theme of pandemic planning and support for various methods of controlling the population in the name of controlling infectious disease. Aside from political donations, this was a central concern. What that has to do with a crypto exchange is another matter.

All of which should raise a question given the time of the life of FTX (2019-2022): to what extent was the network surrounding this institution useful in providing back-channel funding support for (and lack of opposition to) the most unprecedented attack on human liberty in our lifetimes? This question applies to both the direct political contributions and the various other donations to institutions and individuals.

Corrections to this list are welcome.

Family

Sam Bankman-Fried: Went to MIT, worked for Centre for Effective Altruism (fundraising 2017) and started Alameda Research in November 2017, and then the crypto trading company FTX two years later, which he ran until 2022 when it all collapsed after becoming the second-largest donor to Democrats ($38M).

Barbara Helen Fried: mother of Sam, Harvard Law graduate, professor at Stanford University, booster of Effective Altruism, and founder of Mind the Gap, a secretive political action committee in Silicon Valley.

Alan Joseph Bankman: father of Sam, Yale Law graduate and later clinical psychologist, law professor at Stanford, and author and expert on tax law.

Linda Fried: Sam’s aunt on his mother’s side and Dean of School of Public Health at Columbia University and on the board of the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on Aging.

Gabriel Bankman-Fried: Sam’s brother who ran Guarding Against Pandemics, a lobbying organization supporting “pandemic planning” also known as lockdowns and vaccine mandates. It has a Capitol Hill headquarters that cost $3.3 million. He previously served on a Congressional staff.

Associates

Caroline Ellison: Schooled at Stanford, she is daughter of Glenn Ellison and Sara Fisher Ellison, both professors at MIT. She became CEO of Sam’s Alameda Research and reported girlfriend of Sam’s.

Sara Fisher Ellison and Glenn Ellison: Caroline’s mother is professor of economics at MIT with a research specialization in the pharmaceutical industry while her father has written at least four papers on epidemiological modeling.

Nishad Singh: former MIT roommate of Sam’s who is said to have built the FTX platform. He seems to have left the Bahamas for India.

Zixiao “Gary” Wang: Co-founder with Sam of FTX and Alameda. He graduated from MIT and worked for Google. Beyond that hardly anything is known about him. He seems to have left the Bahamas and is reported to be in Hong Kong.

Ryan Salame: Graduate of UMass-Amherst and head of FTX Digital Markets, plus proprietor of R Salame Digital Asset Fund through the Berkshire Taconic Community Foundation, allegedly for charitable purposes.

William David MacAskill: real name Crouch, William is an author and philosopher and founder of the Centre for Effective Altruism and a close colleague of Sam’s. He served on the board of FTX Future Fund until it collapsed. He is a media personality who gives TED talks and is a leader purveyor of the view that one should get very rich and give it away.

Funded Institutions and Individuals (some taken from here)

Together Trial: This elaborate trial of therapeutics ended up inveighing against Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine and was generously funded by FTX. But that has been scrubbed from the public website. This is a continuing problem.

Moncef Slaoui: The head of Operation Warp Speed, he received $150,000 from FTX to write SBF’s autobiography, according to a Washington Post investigation.

HelixNano: A vaccine company that claims to be developing mutation-resistant vaccines, which received $10M in funding from FTX Future Fund, according to a Washington Post investigation.

Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security: This institution ran the Event 201 lockdown tabletop exercise in 2019, and received at least $175,000 for a single employee, from FTX coffers. We don’t know the full extent but it was enough for the head of the Center to defend Sam and FTX in public. Nor do we know Alameda Research’s funding reach of this institution.

Guarding Against Pandemics: Run by Sam’s brother Gabriel, this 501c4 gave at least $1M to campaigns in 2022. We do not know how much money Alameda/FTX funneled to this institution. Sam fequently recommend it as a target for charitable giving.

Protect Our Future: run by the two brothers, this PAC gave $28M to candidates in the 2022 cycle. We do not know how much Alameda/FTX gave.

Center for Innovation in Global Health, Stanford University: FTX and its network gave $1.5M to the institution.

ProPublica: A grant of $5M from FTX Future Fund. Other reports say $27 million.

Centre for Effective Altruism: FTX Future fund gift of $14M

Effective Ideas Blog: It promised to pay $1K to good blogs, and its Twitter frequently links to other institutions and individuals in the FTX network. Funded by Future Fund: $900K

Piezo Therapeutics: “Work on technology for delivering mRNA vaccines without lipid nanoparticles with the aim of making vaccines more safe, affordable, and scalable.” FTX gave $1M

Council on Strategic Risks: “a project which will develop and advance ideas for strengthening regional and multilateral cooperation for addressing biological risks.” $400K from FTX

AVECRIS Pte. Ltd: “support the development of a next-generation genetic vaccine platform that aims to allow for highly distributed vaccine production using AVECRIS’s advanced DNA vector delivery technology.” $3.6M from FTX

University of Ottawa: “a project to develop new plastic surfaces incorporating molecules that can be activated with low-energy visible light to eradicate bacteria and kill viruses continuously.” FTX gave $250K

1Day Sooner: “work on pandemic preparedness, including advocacy for advance market purchase commitments, collaboration with the UK Pandemic Ethics Accelerator.” FTX gave $300K.

SAGE: “creation of a pilot version of a forecasting platform, and a paid forecasting team, to make predictions about questions relevant to high-impact research.” FTX gave $700K

Longview: “global priorities research, nuclear weapons policy, and other longtermist issues.” Advisor: William MacAskill. FTX gave $15M

Confirm Solutions: “support development of statistical models and software tools that can automate parts of the regulatory process for complex clinical trials.” FTX gave $1M

Lightcone Infrastructure: “ongoing projects including running the LessWrong forum, hosting conferences and events, and maintaining an office space for Effective Altruist organizations.” FTX gave $2M

Rational Animations: “the creation of animated videos on topics related to rationality and effective altruism to explain these topics for a broader audience.” FTX gift: $400K

Giving What We Can: “to create a world in which giving effectively and significantly is a cultural norm.” FTX gift: $700,000

The Atlas Fellowship: scholarships for talented and promising high school students to use towards educational opportunities and enrolling in a summer program. FTX gift: $5M

Constellation: “support 18 months of operations for a longtermist coworking space in Berkeley.” FIX coughed up $3.9M

Longview Philanthropy: “creating a longtermist coworking office in London.” FTX committed $2.9M

Long Term Future Fund: “longtermist grantmaking.” FTX committed $3.9M

OurWorldinData: graphs and charts portal. FTX committed $7.5M

Institute for Progress: “research and policy engagement work on high-skilled immigration, biosecurity, and pandemic prevention.” FTX was in for $480K. Additional support came from Emergent Ventures, which was modeled on Fast Grants that funded Neil Ferguson’s pandemic modeling at Imperial College London, which seems to have an entangled relationship with the SFB empire, one yet to be fully disclosed.

Conclusion

What is listed above only scratches the surface of the admitted $160 million given out, but the promise had been for fully $1 billion to go to various nonprofits in this network that seems to be supported or even founded in order to receive money from FTX-connected institutions.

We could only list some of the names and a fraction of the dollar amounts. There are many other institutions and names that could be part of this list but we lacked enough documentation to verify for this article. There is still the task of listing all political campaigns that were in receipt of the money as well as the public-relations boosters of the whole effort.

Building off the success of Bill Gates, Sam Bankman-Fried, and his many associates, clearly saw philanthropy as the path to influence, power, and protection. At the same time, many nonprofit organizations saw an opportunity too; to build their own empires through promised millions and billions from a crypto genius in the Bahamas who had an unusual passion for pandemic planning.

For three years, many of us have wondered how it came to be that the critics of lockdowns and mandates were so few and far between. There are surely many explanations but, as usual, it helps fill in the dots to follow the money.

Jeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey A. Tucker, Founder and President of the Brownstone Institute, is an economist and author. He has written 10 books, including Liberty or Lockdown, and thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press. He writes a daily column on economics at The Epoch Times, and speaks widely on topics of economics, technology, social philosophy, and culture.

Related Topics:#BrownstoneInstitute #FollowTheMoney #FTX #JeffLeger #SamBankmanFried #SBFScandal #ThePlayersAndTheMoney

Up Next

Winter & Cold Weather EV Range Loss in 7,000 Cars

Don't Miss

“We’ve turned into tribal, angry, vengeful people” Tim Robbins on how he moved through COVID to a new understanding

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

US strategy to broker peace in Congo and Rwanda – backed by rare earth minerals deal

Crime / 5 hours ago

Mexican Cartels smuggling crude oil in Texas, Southwest border

International / 6 hours ago

Pentagon Salivates Over ‘Expensive’ Weapons While China Races Into Future With Iron Grip Over Cheap Drone Tech

Business

Federal government’s accounting change reduces transparency and accountability

Published on May 3, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

Carney’s deficit-spending plan over the next four years dwarfs the plan from Justin Trudeau, the biggest spender (per-person, inflation-adjusted) in Canadian history, and will add many more billions to Canada’s mountain of federal debt. Yet Prime Minister Carney has tried to sell his plan as more responsible than his predecessor’s.

All Canadians should care about government transparency. In Ottawa, the federal government must provide timely and comprehensible reporting on federal finances so Canadians know whether the government is staying true to its promises. And yet, the Carney government’s new spending framework—which increases complexity and ambiguity in the federal budget—will actually reduce transparency and make it harder for Canadians to hold the government accountable.

The government plans to separate federal spending into two budgets: the operating budget and the capital budget. Spending on government salaries, cash transfers to the provinces (for health care, for example) and to people (e.g. Old Age Security) will fall within the operating budget, while spending on “anything that builds an asset” will fall within the capital budget. Prime Minister Carney plans to balance the operating budget by 2028/29 while increasing spending within the capital budget (which will be funded by more borrowing).

According to the Liberal Party platform, this accounting change will “create a more transparent categorization of the expenditure that contributes to capital formation in Canada.” But in reality, it will muddy the waters and make it harder to evaluate the state of federal finances.

First off, the change will make it more difficult to recognize the actual size of the deficit. While the Carney government plans to balance the operating budget by 2028/29, this does not mean it plans to stop borrowing money. In fact, it will continue to borrow to finance increased capital spending, and as a result, after accounting for both operating and capital spending, will increase planned deficits over the next four years by a projected $93.4 billion compared to the Trudeau government’s last spending plan. You read that right—Carney’s deficit-spending plan over the next four years dwarfs the plan from Justin Trudeau, the biggest spender (per-person, inflation-adjusted) in Canadian history, and will add many more billions to Canada’s mountain of federal debt. Yet Prime Minister Carney has tried to sell his plan as more responsible than his predecessor’s.

In addition to obscuring the amount of borrowing, splitting the budget allows the government to get creative with its accounting. Certain types of spending clearly fall into one category or another. For example, salaries for bureaucrats clearly represent day-to-day operations while funding for long-term infrastructure projects are clearly capital investments. But Carney’s definition of “capital spending” remains vague. Instead of limiting this spending category to direct investments in long-term assets such as roads, ports or military equipment, the government will also include in the capital budget new “incentives” that “support the formation of private sector capital (e.g. patents, plants, and technology) or which meaningfully raise private sector productivity.” In other words, corporate welfare.

Indeed, based on the government’s definition of capital spending, government subsidies to corporations—as long as they somehow relate to creating an asset—could potentially land in the same spending category as new infrastructure spending. Not only would this be inaccurate, but this broad definition means the government could potentially balance the operating budget simply by shifting spending over to the capital budget, as opposed to reducing spending. This would add to the debt but allow the government to maneuver under the guise of “responsible” budgeting.

Finally, rather than split federal spending into two budgets, to increase transparency the Carney government could give Canadians a better idea of how their tax dollars are spent by providing additional breakdowns of line items about operating and capital spending within the existing budget framework.

Clearly, Carney’s new spending framework, as laid out in the Liberal election platform, will only further complicate government finances and make it harder for Canadians to hold their government accountable.

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Grady Munro

Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute

Business

Carney poised to dethrone Trudeau as biggest spender in Canadian history

Published on May 3, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss

The Liberals won the federal election partly due to the perception that Prime Minister Mark Carney will move his government back to the political centre and be more responsible with taxpayer dollars. But in fact, according to Carney’s fiscal plan, he doesn’t think Justin Trudeau was spending and borrowing enough.

To recap, the Trudeau government recorded 10 consecutive budget deficits, racked up $1.1 trillion in debt, recorded the six highest spending years (per person, adjusted for inflation) in Canadian history from 2018 to 2023, and last fall projected large deficits (and $400 billion in additional debt) over the next four years including a $42.2 billion deficit this fiscal year.

By contrast, under Carney’s plan, this year’s deficit will increase to a projected $62.4 billion while the combined deficits over the subsequent three years will be $67.7 billion higher than under Trudeau’s plan.

Consequently, the federal debt, and debt interest costs, will rise sharply. Under Trudeau’s plan, federal debt interest would have reached a projected $66.3 billion in 2028/29 compared to $68.7 billion under the new Carney plan. That’s roughly equivalent to what the government will spend on employment insurance (EI), the Canada Child Benefit and $10-a-day daycare combined. More taxpayer dollars will be diverted away from programs and services and towards servicing the debt.

Clearly, Carney plans to be a bigger spender than Justin Trudeau—who was the biggest spender in Canadian history.

On the campaign trail, Carney was creative in attempting to sell this as a responsible fiscal plan. For example, he split operating and capital spending into two separate budgets. According to his plan’s projections, the Carney government will balance the operating budget—which includes bureaucrat salaries, cash transfers (e.g. health-care funding) and benefits (e.g. Old Age Security)—by 2028/29, while borrowing huge sums to substantially increase capital spending, defined by Carney as anything that builds an asset. This is sleight-of-hand budgeting. Tell the audience to look somewhere—in this case, the operating budget—so it ignores what’s happening in the capital budget.

It’s also far from certain Carney will actually balance the operating budget. He’s banking on finding a mysterious $28.0 billion in savings from “increased government productivity.” His plan to use artificial intelligence and amalgamate service delivery will not magically deliver these savings. He’s already said no to cutting the bureaucracy or reducing any cash transfers to the provinces or individuals. With such a large chunk of spending exempt from review, it’s very difficult to see how meaningful cost savings will materialize.

And there’s no plan to pay for Carney’s spending explosion. Due to rising deficits and debt, the bill will come due later and younger generations of Canadians will bear this burden through higher taxes and/or fewer services.

Finally, there’s an obvious parallel between Carney and Trudeau on the inventive language used to justify more spending. According to Carney, his plan is not increasing spending but rather “investing” in the economy. Thus his campaign slogan “Spend less, invest more.” This wording is eerily similar to the 2015 and 2019 Trudeau election platforms, which claimed all new spending measures were merely “investments” that would increase economic growth. Regardless of the phrasing, Carney’s spending increases will produce the same results as under Trudeau—federal finances will continue to deteriorate without any improvement in economic growth. Canadian living standards (measured by per-person GDP) are lower today than they were seven years ago despite a massive increase in federal “investment” during the Trudeau years. Yet Carney, not content to double down on this failed approach, plans to accelerate it.

The numbers don’t lie; Carney’s fiscal plan includes more spending and borrowing than Trudeau’s plan. This will be a fiscal and economic disaster with Canadians paying the price.